6 ms·

Copyright wars heat up: US wins extradition of college kid from England

198 points by glogla 15y ago

vibrunazo 15y ago
I'm not sure I understand the "nexus" part. Does it means the judge ruled that he specifically targeted the USA with his website instead of it being just a consequence of them being just another country in the internet? The quote from judge seem to imply the later. What exactly does this mean?
- rhizome 15y ago
  He's saying that since the site was accessible in the US that it affected the US, so, consequently the extradition was approved.
- tomjen3 15y ago
  It means that the judge is an idiot. The guy didn't have any nexus -- but my guess is that it was primarily american tv shows that were shared.
jneal 15y ago
At what point will non-US websites just start blocking US-based traffic all together? I suppose one day in the future the US will be like an island on the internet - disconnected from other country's websites due to situations like this.
- tomjen3 15y ago
  There is too much money involved it that.
  - k-mcgrady 15y ago
    That won't always be the case as more and more people around the world come online. If the US continues on a SOPA/ACTA/PIPA path I could see some internet companies blocking them in the same way that a lot of companies don't do business in China.
  - rickmb 15y ago
    I doubt that. The vast majority of non-US websites has very little to lose from blocking US traffic. And I'm not talking minor sites either.
    - chimeracoder 15y ago
      > The vast majority of non-US websites has very little to lose from blocking US traffic. Yes, but US websites comprise the vast majority of top websites on the Internet....
    - mike-cardwell 15y ago
      "The vast majority of non-US websites has very little to lose from blocking US traffic." Also: The vast majority of non-US websites have very little to gain from blocking US traffic
      - grecy 15y ago
        > Also: The vast majority of non-US websites have very little to gain from blocking US traffic That's not true at all. Non-US websites will gain the ability to not have to follow US law, and not risk being extradited for doing so.
        mike-cardwell 15y ago
        Wrong. The vast majority of websites don't break US law. Not because they went out of their way to avoid it, but because they simply don't. These sites don't have anything to gain by blocking the US. Ergo, quite clearly, the vast majority of non-US websites have nothing to gain from blocking US traffic. Nothing at all.
anons2011 15y ago
Absolutely disgusting, shame on the US
- function_seven 15y ago
  No, shame on the UK. All they had to do is say "No". (Well, shame on the US as well).
  - mike-cardwell 15y ago
    As a Brit, I'm ashamed of the UK government and once again disgusted by the US government.
hastur 15y ago
LOL, the UK is a US colony now. I can hear History rolling on the floor with laughter.
- mike-cardwell 15y ago
  Only if you're ignorant of the facts. http://london.usembassy.gov/gb140.html http://london.usembassy.gov/gb140.html "The United States has not denied a single extradition request from the UK under the treaty. While the U.S. does send more extradition requests to the UK than it receives, this difference is largely due to the differences in the size of the respective populations. The panel report notes that the U.S. has a population about five times the size of the UK, but there have been fewer than twice the number of people extradited to the U.S. than to the UK. The number of U.S. requests is not disproportionate."
  - hastur 15y ago
    The numbers are no excuse in case of a person that did not break UK law. How about your country signs an extradition treaty with Saudi Arabia and you get extradited and have your head chopped off for having a beer, since alcohol is illegal in SA? (Yes, an absurd stretch, but you get the point.)
    - andylei 15y ago
      > a person that did not break UK law the judge believes he broke UK law. from the telegraph article: > The defence believed its strongest argument against extradition was that Mr O'Dwyer had not committed an offence under British law, because TVShack did not itself host copyright material. European law says no crime is committed if a website acts as a “mere conduit”. > However, Judge Purdy rejected the argument from Mr O’Dwyer’s barrister, Ben Cooper of Doughty Street Chambers, because of the control the student had over what links were posted on TVShack.net and TVShack.cc.
      - alextgordon 15y ago
        So that's it? If a judge believes it, then it must be true! He's not even a proper judge!
methoddk 15y ago
This is completely out of hand now. The US is now a country where you are guilty until proven innocent. It is disgusting to see domain seizures with no concrete basis of doing so. This kid is being extradited to the US because his website provided links to TV shows? "Copyright infringers" are treated with less dignity and respect than mass murderers and rapists.
- travisp 15y ago
  >This is completely out of hand now. The US is now a country where you are guilty until proven innocent. Am I missing something? Has he been found guilty? Why is an extradition the same thing as being "guilty until proven innocent"? By definition, extradition is before a trial has occurred. After he has been extradited is when the trial will occur.
  - methoddk 15y ago
    So his domains and servers are seized while the "investigation" is pending? The UK could've done their part and stopped this from happening in the first place. They are way out of bounds stepping over into other countries to pursue legal action for this. The site wasn't operated in the US. Who was threatened by a link site? There's much bigger fish in the sea of copyright infringement. SOPA and PIPA may have gotten shelved, but this just proves US will do what it wants anyway.
  - toyg 15y ago
    When the extradition process is started, it is because the relevant authorities have already decided the individual is guilty. Otherwise, they would not bother spending so much time and effort trying to apprehend him. Juries are invariably biased against foreigners, so the chances of an acquittal are basically zero.
    - travisp 15y ago
      >When the extradition process is started, it is because the relevant authorities have already decided the individual is guilty. So, what is the right approach? Start the extradition process when you don't believe the individual is guilty? I would hope not. Taking action to bring someone to trial because you believe they are guilty is entirely different from the claim that in the US you are now "guilty until proven innocent". Presumption of innocence means that the burden of proof is on the prosecution in the trial. It does not mean that the prosecution is required to not believe themselves that the individual is guilty.
scarmig 15y ago
Apart from the general ridiculousness of the US extraditing copyright infringers but not pedophiles: Do the Brits really not have any outrage over this? If the PRC successfully extradited an American for some real or imagined digital crime (say, building and hosting the website of a designated terrorist organization), we'd be in an uproar. At least, I hope we would...
- desas 15y ago
  Brits have been complaining about this ever since the treaty was signed. I think generally we're currently more concerned about changes to our health system. Plus the USA is hardly the PRC.
  - drucken 15y ago
    Actually, given the harshness of the penal system in every aspect including their plea-bargaining facet, the US may as well be the PRC compared to the EU. Also, like the PRC, the US has the death penalty. Separately, there should be a public interest requirement on extraditions, whether by treaty or otherwise, just like there is on all other parts of the UK justice system. This is a travesty to the individuals involved in this and many other UK-to-US extraditions and yet another embarrassment to the UK.
    - arethuza 15y ago
      Ironically, if he did face the death penalty then he wouldn't be extradited.
  - praptak 15y ago
    > Plus the USA is hardly the PRC. Yeah, guess which of the two has more inmates per capita.
    - shirro 15y ago
      Yeah and its not like the USA does barbaric stuff like execute people.
archangel_one 15y ago
Further proof, as if we needed any more, that the current extradition treaty is a total mess. There's been some publicity recently around it, which might mean that one day this gets fixed so this doesn't get inflicted on more people in the future, but that's cold comfort to this poor bloke. The concept of extraditing someone to face trial in another country with a possibility of jail for 10 years simply for running a website that links to copyrighted content is just sick. I would have to think pretty hard to come up with a crime less damaging than copyright infringement, and destroying a young person's life over that is a terrible thing.
forrestthewoods 15y ago
The kid made $230,000 by helping users view copyrighted material they did not pay for. That sounds pretty jail worthy to me. It is however strange that he's being extradited and I generally oppose individuals "being made an example of". I'd much prefer he go through the UK system than the US.
- dav-id 15y ago
  If I recall correctly he didnt break any laws in the UK.
  - mrkmcknz 15y ago
    Correct because in the UK members of parliament are not elected to represent the complete morons at the MPAA and RIAA.
  - andylei 15y ago
    that's not what the judge thought. from the article in the telegraph: > The defence believed its strongest argument against extradition was that Mr O'Dwyer had not committed an offence under British law > However, Judge Purdy rejected the argument
    - grecy 15y ago
      I read that to mean the judge is not saying he broke British laws, just that not breaking British laws is not a valid argument.
      - andylei 15y ago
        i don't think your reading is correct. one of the basic principles of extradition agreements is that the law broken has to apply in both countries
- smokeyj 15y ago
  > The kid made $230,000 by helping users view copyrighted material they did not pay for. That sounds pretty jail worthy to me. Sounds like an entrepreneur to me.
anon0518 15y ago
How about we recommend Denmark to start extraditing people to Iran and Saudi Arabia for Muhammad cartoons? I'm sure it's possible to find a nexus there, if that's all it takes.
TylerE 15y ago
That ARS writeup is pretty one-sided. I love how they paint him up as a poor student, and don't mention the $250,000+ he made off the site. This was absolutely not just piracy, but PROFITING from piracy. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/9013803/Student-Richard-ODwyer-can-be-extradited-over-TV-website.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/9013803/Student-R...
- nkassis 15y ago
  How was the money made? Ads? Google has ads and finding a video of any show on there is pretty easy. They are also profiting from infringement. In the end I just don't get why linking is why if what he did is not it's not illegal where he is he could still be extradited even if he never had servers in the US and never promoted directly to Americans (I'm assuming he didn't go out and ask Americans to his site). Thing is, if his site was in French I would be there would be no case for extradition.
  - TylerE 15y ago
    Yes, ads. It's a difference of attitude. I found a snapshot of their site, here are a few bits from their FAQ: " Also, please keep in mind that you're watching videos for free as opposed to spending over 20 dollars at the movie theater or purchasing a show. This should help you put things in perspective (keep in mind that prices change but this is a normal, typical price). " ... snipped price list ... "So, as you see, you're saving quite a lot of money (especially when putting several visits to the theater or seasons together) by having to wait a little bit of time. " Their main listing page is broken up into genres, which shows they were aware of the nature of their content, and includes heading that indicate the source of the content: "Movies" "TV" "Anime", etc. They don't even make an effort to hide what they are doing. Their submission page mentions "Copying the name of the show exactly as it is on imdb". As for the issue of linking, it's a red herring here. This was not some neutral site linking to random, user submitted comment. This was a curated collection. They knew _exactly_ what they were doing.
    - nkassis 15y ago
rickmb 15y ago
The current political and legal sell-out to the US makes me, and I believe many fellow-Europeans, increasingly angry in a way that is fundamentally different from any anti-American feelings for instance during the Bush-years. Disagreeing with US foreign policy is one thing, but being on the receiving end of US meddling through political and legal corruption in a way that undermines our civil rights cuts way deeper.
- cmelbye 15y ago
  It wouldn't be possible if you government didn't cooperate. They're just as much to blame in this case.
  - andylei 15y ago
    that's exactly what rickmb is talking about. he says > sell-out to the US
- hastur 15y ago
  The UK made a nice gift to the US on the eve of Cameron's visit.
- jterce 15y ago
  It makes many Americans increasingly angry as well.
  - seanp2k2 15y ago
    USA acts like they own the world, and they must be stopped. See also: USA prison industrial complex figures out how to break into the international market.
- hastur 15y ago
  Remember PG saying in a recent essay that you start an innovative product by luring the hackers first? I think the same applies to ideas, as exemplified by the RFS to Kill Hollywood. Well, so here is a great way the US is luring the world talent: By alienating the smart people with brainless and predatory policies like this. Don't host your startup with a US company or at a European data center belonging to a US company (e.g. AWS or Linode in Ireland). And preferably not in a country that is a US copyright/IP colony (UK, AU, NZ, CA). Otherwise you're putting your users and yourself in danger.
rlpb 15y ago
The trouble with this is that if the US has a legitimate claim on him, then so does every other country in the world, since they're all on the Internet too. And it isn't reasonable for me to be on the Internet and be expected to comply with the laws of all the countries in the world all at once. Or is there something specific apart from being on the Internet that gives the US some kind of special claim on him?
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  Only that US has this kind of extradition treaty with UK. But I assume US has it with many other countries, too. Extradition should only happen for the most vicious of the crimes or for war crimes in my opinion, and it should go both ways. But extradition for copyright infringement? That's pretty ridiculous, especially when they have to extradite that country's own citizen.
mrkmcknz 15y ago
The main dispute of the US-UK extradition agreement derives from the fact the US has to show 'reasonable suspicion' however the UK has to show 'probable cause'. However some argue there is no difference namely Sir Scott Baker who's reports stated: "In our opinion there is no significant difference between the probably cause test and the reasonable suspicion test" However, critics of the treaty say it is much easier to extradite people from the UK than the US because the US does not need to present evidence to a British court. Conversely, the UK must provide "sufficient evidence to establish probable cause" in order to secure the extradition of an American citizen. The other argument is the agreement was post 9-11 for the speedy extradition of terrorists but between 2003 and 2009 only one of 63 extraditions were terrorists. To be honest I don't really know whether the extradition agreement is one sided, I feel it might have something to do with the respective cases being so high profile. Perhaps the UK's punishment of crime in comparison to the US is also an issue, sentence lengths in the UK generally tend to be a lot less.
- mike-cardwell 15y ago
  From: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16024278 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16024278 "between January 2004 and July 2011 there were 130 requests by the US for people to be extradited from the UK, compared with 54 requests from the UK to the US." "the US had never denied a UK extradition request"
rwmj 15y ago
This could be very serious for UK programmers. Are you sure that no code you've written infringes on US patents? Or is used on a website that encourages the wrong type of copyright infringement?
- mike-cardwell 15y ago
  "Are you sure that no code you've written infringes on US patents? Or is used on a website that encourages the wrong type of copyright infringement?" You seem to be implying that if a UK programmer writes some code, and then somebody goes and uses that code for copyright or patent infringement, they are at risk of being extradited to the US... Nothing like that has ever happened and it bares no resemblance to the article under discussion.
  - rwmj 15y ago
    I'm implying both that, or that I distribute some software that infringes a US patent. How do we know that the overreaching arm of US corporations won't try to sue some little guy in the UK over this?
voidr 15y ago
And this was all because the guy put a few links on his site...The power of these trolls is getting scary, they can bribe anyone it seems.
J3L2404 15y ago
This kid may well have listened to PG to his peril. Normally there is no advice he gives that is bad, but his "KILL HOLLYWOOD" and convoluted stance on copyright might make you think that reality is on your side. It is not. This fantasy that all movies should be free on the internet is beyond retarded, it is actually hazardous to your freedom, if you try to profit from it. Did he really think he was going to make a quarter million with no consequences? Time to put away childish things.
alan_cx 15y ago
What bothers me is the way British governments, regardless of which party is in power, never ever back the British people. They almost cant wait to sling them off to who ever wants us. Our governments never back the people at all. What ever the trouble, you are one your own, they dont want to know. In contrast, while I dislike the way the US seems to expect to pluck any world citizen it likes to gamble in its disturbing who can afford the best lawyer lottery legal process, it's government will fight tooth and nail for its citizens.
- polshaw 15y ago
  It bothers me too (especially this case), but i think it's relevant to note that the US has never refused an extradition to the UK, but the UK has refused several to the US. OTOH, the US has made more requests, and capital punishment.
Joakal 15y ago
For those that think USA only tackles people profiting from copyright infringement, there's this person extradited from Australia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hew_Griffiths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hew_Griffiths It's likely you'll deal with USA due to American copyrighted content (Hew Grifftiths), Americans visiting the website (Gambling precedent), profit or altruism, they can come after you depending on extradition treaties and the local government's support of USA. Join the Pirate Party in your area to outlaw domain seizures among other issues. To protect your current/future business as well other entrepreneurs. No other political party is doing this to my knowledge.

198 points by glogla 15y ago

I'm not sure I understand the "nexus" part. Does it means the judge ruled that he specifically targeted the USA with his website instead of it being just a consequence of them being just another country in the internet? The quote from judge seem to imply the later. What exactly does this mean?

rhizome 15y ago
He's saying that since the site was accessible in the US that it affected the US, so, consequently the extradition was approved.
tomjen3 15y ago
It means that the judge is an idiot. The guy didn't have any nexus -- but my guess is that it was primarily american tv shows that were shared.

jneal 15y ago

At what point will non-US websites just start blocking US-based traffic all together? I suppose one day in the future the US will be like an island on the internet - disconnected from other country's websites due to situations like this.

tomjen3 15y ago
There is too much money involved it that.
- k-mcgrady 15y ago
  That won't always be the case as more and more people around the world come online. If the US continues on a SOPA/ACTA/PIPA path I could see some internet companies blocking them in the same way that a lot of companies don't do business in China.
- rickmb 15y ago
  I doubt that. The vast majority of non-US websites has very little to lose from blocking US traffic. And I'm not talking minor sites either.
  - chimeracoder 15y ago
    > The vast majority of non-US websites has very little to lose from blocking US traffic. Yes, but US websites comprise the vast majority of top websites on the Internet....
  - mike-cardwell 15y ago
    "The vast majority of non-US websites has very little to lose from blocking US traffic." Also: The vast majority of non-US websites have very little to gain from blocking US traffic
    - grecy 15y ago
      > Also: The vast majority of non-US websites have very little to gain from blocking US traffic That's not true at all. Non-US websites will gain the ability to not have to follow US law, and not risk being extradited for doing so.
      - mike-cardwell 15y ago
        Wrong. The vast majority of websites don't break US law. Not because they went out of their way to avoid it, but because they simply don't. These sites don't have anything to gain by blocking the US. Ergo, quite clearly, the vast majority of non-US websites have nothing to gain from blocking US traffic. Nothing at all.

anons2011 15y ago

Absolutely disgusting, shame on the US

function_seven 15y ago
No, shame on the UK. All they had to do is say "No". (Well, shame on the US as well).
- mike-cardwell 15y ago
  As a Brit, I'm ashamed of the UK government and once again disgusted by the US government.

hastur 15y ago

LOL, the UK is a US colony now. I can hear History rolling on the floor with laughter.

mike-cardwell 15y ago
Only if you're ignorant of the facts. http://london.usembassy.gov/gb140.html http://london.usembassy.gov/gb140.html "The United States has not denied a single extradition request from the UK under the treaty. While the U.S. does send more extradition requests to the UK than it receives, this difference is largely due to the differences in the size of the respective populations. The panel report notes that the U.S. has a population about five times the size of the UK, but there have been fewer than twice the number of people extradited to the U.S. than to the UK. The number of U.S. requests is not disproportionate."
- hastur 15y ago
  The numbers are no excuse in case of a person that did not break UK law. How about your country signs an extradition treaty with Saudi Arabia and you get extradited and have your head chopped off for having a beer, since alcohol is illegal in SA? (Yes, an absurd stretch, but you get the point.)
  - andylei 15y ago
    > a person that did not break UK law the judge believes he broke UK law. from the telegraph article: > The defence believed its strongest argument against extradition was that Mr O'Dwyer had not committed an offence under British law, because TVShack did not itself host copyright material. European law says no crime is committed if a website acts as a “mere conduit”. > However, Judge Purdy rejected the argument from Mr O’Dwyer’s barrister, Ben Cooper of Doughty Street Chambers, because of the control the student had over what links were posted on TVShack.net and TVShack.cc.
    - alextgordon 15y ago
      So that's it? If a judge believes it, then it must be true! He's not even a proper judge!

methoddk 15y ago

This is completely out of hand now. The US is now a country where you are guilty until proven innocent. It is disgusting to see domain seizures with no concrete basis of doing so. This kid is being extradited to the US because his website provided links to TV shows? "Copyright infringers" are treated with less dignity and respect than mass murderers and rapists.

travisp 15y ago
>This is completely out of hand now. The US is now a country where you are guilty until proven innocent. Am I missing something? Has he been found guilty? Why is an extradition the same thing as being "guilty until proven innocent"? By definition, extradition is before a trial has occurred. After he has been extradited is when the trial will occur.
- methoddk 15y ago
  So his domains and servers are seized while the "investigation" is pending? The UK could've done their part and stopped this from happening in the first place. They are way out of bounds stepping over into other countries to pursue legal action for this. The site wasn't operated in the US. Who was threatened by a link site? There's much bigger fish in the sea of copyright infringement. SOPA and PIPA may have gotten shelved, but this just proves US will do what it wants anyway.
- toyg 15y ago
  When the extradition process is started, it is because the relevant authorities have already decided the individual is guilty. Otherwise, they would not bother spending so much time and effort trying to apprehend him. Juries are invariably biased against foreigners, so the chances of an acquittal are basically zero.
  - travisp 15y ago
    >When the extradition process is started, it is because the relevant authorities have already decided the individual is guilty. So, what is the right approach? Start the extradition process when you don't believe the individual is guilty? I would hope not. Taking action to bring someone to trial because you believe they are guilty is entirely different from the claim that in the US you are now "guilty until proven innocent". Presumption of innocence means that the burden of proof is on the prosecution in the trial. It does not mean that the prosecution is required to not believe themselves that the individual is guilty.

scarmig 15y ago

Apart from the general ridiculousness of the US extraditing copyright infringers but not pedophiles: Do the Brits really not have any outrage over this? If the PRC successfully extradited an American for some real or imagined digital crime (say, building and hosting the website of a designated terrorist organization), we'd be in an uproar. At least, I hope we would...

desas 15y ago
Brits have been complaining about this ever since the treaty was signed. I think generally we're currently more concerned about changes to our health system. Plus the USA is hardly the PRC.
- drucken 15y ago
  Actually, given the harshness of the penal system in every aspect including their plea-bargaining facet, the US may as well be the PRC compared to the EU. Also, like the PRC, the US has the death penalty. Separately, there should be a public interest requirement on extraditions, whether by treaty or otherwise, just like there is on all other parts of the UK justice system. This is a travesty to the individuals involved in this and many other UK-to-US extraditions and yet another embarrassment to the UK.
  - arethuza 15y ago
    Ironically, if he did face the death penalty then he wouldn't be extradited.
- praptak 15y ago
  > Plus the USA is hardly the PRC. Yeah, guess which of the two has more inmates per capita.
  - shirro 15y ago
    Yeah and its not like the USA does barbaric stuff like execute people.

archangel_one 15y ago

Further proof, as if we needed any more, that the current extradition treaty is a total mess. There's been some publicity recently around it, which might mean that one day this gets fixed so this doesn't get inflicted on more people in the future, but that's cold comfort to this poor bloke. The concept of extraditing someone to face trial in another country with a possibility of jail for 10 years simply for running a website that links to copyrighted content is just sick. I would have to think pretty hard to come up with a crime less damaging than copyright infringement, and destroying a young person's life over that is a terrible thing.

forrestthewoods 15y ago

The kid made $230,000 by helping users view copyrighted material they did not pay for. That sounds pretty jail worthy to me. It is however strange that he's being extradited and I generally oppose individuals "being made an example of". I'd much prefer he go through the UK system than the US.

dav-id 15y ago
If I recall correctly he didnt break any laws in the UK.
- mrkmcknz 15y ago
  Correct because in the UK members of parliament are not elected to represent the complete morons at the MPAA and RIAA.
- andylei 15y ago
  that's not what the judge thought. from the article in the telegraph: > The defence believed its strongest argument against extradition was that Mr O'Dwyer had not committed an offence under British law > However, Judge Purdy rejected the argument
  - grecy 15y ago
    I read that to mean the judge is not saying he broke British laws, just that not breaking British laws is not a valid argument.
    - andylei 15y ago
      i don't think your reading is correct. one of the basic principles of extradition agreements is that the law broken has to apply in both countries
smokeyj 15y ago
> The kid made $230,000 by helping users view copyrighted material they did not pay for. That sounds pretty jail worthy to me. Sounds like an entrepreneur to me.

anon0518 15y ago

How about we recommend Denmark to start extraditing people to Iran and Saudi Arabia for Muhammad cartoons? I'm sure it's possible to find a nexus there, if that's all it takes.

TylerE 15y ago

That ARS writeup is pretty one-sided. I love how they paint him up as a poor student, and don't mention the $250,000+ he made off the site. This was absolutely not just piracy, but PROFITING from piracy. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/9013803/Student-Richard-ODwyer-can-be-extradited-over-TV-website.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/9013803/Student-R...

nkassis 15y ago
How was the money made? Ads? Google has ads and finding a video of any show on there is pretty easy. They are also profiting from infringement. In the end I just don't get why linking is why if what he did is not it's not illegal where he is he could still be extradited even if he never had servers in the US and never promoted directly to Americans (I'm assuming he didn't go out and ask Americans to his site). Thing is, if his site was in French I would be there would be no case for extradition.
- TylerE 15y ago
  Yes, ads. It's a difference of attitude. I found a snapshot of their site, here are a few bits from their FAQ: " Also, please keep in mind that you're watching videos for free as opposed to spending over 20 dollars at the movie theater or purchasing a show. This should help you put things in perspective (keep in mind that prices change but this is a normal, typical price). " ... snipped price list ... "So, as you see, you're saving quite a lot of money (especially when putting several visits to the theater or seasons together) by having to wait a little bit of time. " Their main listing page is broken up into genres, which shows they were aware of the nature of their content, and includes heading that indicate the source of the content: "Movies" "TV" "Anime", etc. They don't even make an effort to hide what they are doing. Their submission page mentions "Copying the name of the show exactly as it is on imdb". As for the issue of linking, it's a red herring here. This was not some neutral site linking to random, user submitted comment. This was a curated collection. They knew _exactly_ what they were doing.
  - nkassis 15y ago

rickmb 15y ago

The current political and legal sell-out to the US makes me, and I believe many fellow-Europeans, increasingly angry in a way that is fundamentally different from any anti-American feelings for instance during the Bush-years. Disagreeing with US foreign policy is one thing, but being on the receiving end of US meddling through political and legal corruption in a way that undermines our civil rights cuts way deeper.

cmelbye 15y ago
It wouldn't be possible if you government didn't cooperate. They're just as much to blame in this case.
- andylei 15y ago
  that's exactly what rickmb is talking about. he says > sell-out to the US
hastur 15y ago
The UK made a nice gift to the US on the eve of Cameron's visit.
jterce 15y ago
It makes many Americans increasingly angry as well.
- seanp2k2 15y ago
  USA acts like they own the world, and they must be stopped. See also: USA prison industrial complex figures out how to break into the international market.
hastur 15y ago
Remember PG saying in a recent essay that you start an innovative product by luring the hackers first? I think the same applies to ideas, as exemplified by the RFS to Kill Hollywood. Well, so here is a great way the US is luring the world talent: By alienating the smart people with brainless and predatory policies like this. Don't host your startup with a US company or at a European data center belonging to a US company (e.g. AWS or Linode in Ireland). And preferably not in a country that is a US copyright/IP colony (UK, AU, NZ, CA). Otherwise you're putting your users and yourself in danger.

rlpb 15y ago

The trouble with this is that if the US has a legitimate claim on him, then so does every other country in the world, since they're all on the Internet too. And it isn't reasonable for me to be on the Internet and be expected to comply with the laws of all the countries in the world all at once. Or is there something specific apart from being on the Internet that gives the US some kind of special claim on him?

nextparadigms 15y ago
Only that US has this kind of extradition treaty with UK. But I assume US has it with many other countries, too. Extradition should only happen for the most vicious of the crimes or for war crimes in my opinion, and it should go both ways. But extradition for copyright infringement? That's pretty ridiculous, especially when they have to extradite that country's own citizen.

mrkmcknz 15y ago

The main dispute of the US-UK extradition agreement derives from the fact the US has to show 'reasonable suspicion' however the UK has to show 'probable cause'. However some argue there is no difference namely Sir Scott Baker who's reports stated: "In our opinion there is no significant difference between the probably cause test and the reasonable suspicion test" However, critics of the treaty say it is much easier to extradite people from the UK than the US because the US does not need to present evidence to a British court. Conversely, the UK must provide "sufficient evidence to establish probable cause" in order to secure the extradition of an American citizen. The other argument is the agreement was post 9-11 for the speedy extradition of terrorists but between 2003 and 2009 only one of 63 extraditions were terrorists. To be honest I don't really know whether the extradition agreement is one sided, I feel it might have something to do with the respective cases being so high profile. Perhaps the UK's punishment of crime in comparison to the US is also an issue, sentence lengths in the UK generally tend to be a lot less.

mike-cardwell 15y ago
From: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16024278 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16024278 "between January 2004 and July 2011 there were 130 requests by the US for people to be extradited from the UK, compared with 54 requests from the UK to the US." "the US had never denied a UK extradition request"

rwmj 15y ago

This could be very serious for UK programmers. Are you sure that no code you've written infringes on US patents? Or is used on a website that encourages the wrong type of copyright infringement?

mike-cardwell 15y ago
"Are you sure that no code you've written infringes on US patents? Or is used on a website that encourages the wrong type of copyright infringement?" You seem to be implying that if a UK programmer writes some code, and then somebody goes and uses that code for copyright or patent infringement, they are at risk of being extradited to the US... Nothing like that has ever happened and it bares no resemblance to the article under discussion.
- rwmj 15y ago
  I'm implying both that, or that I distribute some software that infringes a US patent. How do we know that the overreaching arm of US corporations won't try to sue some little guy in the UK over this?

voidr 15y ago

And this was all because the guy put a few links on his site...The power of these trolls is getting scary, they can bribe anyone it seems.

J3L2404 15y ago

This kid may well have listened to PG to his peril. Normally there is no advice he gives that is bad, but his "KILL HOLLYWOOD" and convoluted stance on copyright might make you think that reality is on your side. It is not. This fantasy that all movies should be free on the internet is beyond retarded, it is actually hazardous to your freedom, if you try to profit from it. Did he really think he was going to make a quarter million with no consequences? Time to put away childish things.

alan_cx 15y ago

What bothers me is the way British governments, regardless of which party is in power, never ever back the British people. They almost cant wait to sling them off to who ever wants us. Our governments never back the people at all. What ever the trouble, you are one your own, they dont want to know. In contrast, while I dislike the way the US seems to expect to pluck any world citizen it likes to gamble in its disturbing who can afford the best lawyer lottery legal process, it's government will fight tooth and nail for its citizens.

polshaw 15y ago
It bothers me too (especially this case), but i think it's relevant to note that the US has never refused an extradition to the UK, but the UK has refused several to the US. OTOH, the US has made more requests, and capital punishment.

Joakal 15y ago

For those that think USA only tackles people profiting from copyright infringement, there's this person extradited from Australia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hew_Griffiths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hew_Griffiths It's likely you'll deal with USA due to American copyrighted content (Hew Grifftiths), Americans visiting the website (Gambling precedent), profit or altruism, they can come after you depending on extradition treaties and the local government's support of USA. Join the Pirate Party in your area to outlaw domain seizures among other issues. To protect your current/future business as well other entrepreneurs. No other political party is doing this to my knowledge.